To some people it is great. To others it is terrible. But what really is socialism? What are the good aspects of it? What are the bad aspects of it? What did America's Founding Fathers have to say about socialism? Has it ever succeeded in history? I hope you join me on this journey of defining just what socialism REALLY is.

Table of Contents

  • Why I wrote this
  • Defining Socialism
  • Some Socialist Agendas
  • Basic Principles of Life
    • Growth
    • Not everyone is created equal
    • Principles to Build a Foundation
  • Measuring Socialism Actions Against Principles
    • Hard VS Easy
    • Parent & Child
    • Hitting on Emotions
    • Short-Term VS Long-Term
  • Teaching How To Fish
  • Socialism is a Failing Model
  • Socialism Is Morally Wrong
  • Socialists DO NOT Know History
  • Most Socialists Do Not Recognize the Errors
  • People DO Sell Out
  • Socialism is Religious Fanaticism
  • Administered By The Government
  • Democrats and Republicans are both Socialists
  • Capitalism hasn't failed
  • Side by side comparison
  • Some Admirable People Throughout History
  • Why It's Promoted
  • A Final Look At Socialist Programs
  • Conclusion

Why I wrote this

This article is written for progressives, socialists, moderates, Republicans, Democrats, liberals and people who are generally happy with the way government operates. The aim of this article is to explain the many pitfalls of socialism and why it has never worked and can't possibly work. You will discover how socialism is contrary to universal laws, how it is morally weak and how it has more bad than good.

So if you're a socialist I would advise leaving now because I know you guys don't like reading. Basketball is probably on right now, or maybe American Idol. Go get your fix, Caesar has given you plenty of entertainment :).

Defining Socialism

The word socialism can take on many different meanings to different people. Different words mean different things to different people. It is important to look beyond words and into the actions and concepts behind words. The word Nazi itself is quite meaningless. But when coupled with killing, totalitarian dictatorship, genocide, etc, it takes on a whole new meaning. So it is important to see which concepts are associated with socialism.

When I use the term socialism I am basically talking about the government administering helpful programs to citizens that are funded through taxpayer money. Socialism basically is government intervention in human affairs. It's similar to Robin Hood - taking from the rich and giving to the poor. That is basically what the term means. Socialism levels the playing field and tries to bring the poor and less fortunate up a little, while bringing the rich and more fortunate down a little. So now that we have that out of the way let's move on.

Some Socialist Agendas

To get a better understanding of what we're really talking about here let's list some socialist programs:

  • Social Security
  • Medicare/Medicaid
  • Minimum Wage
  • Unemployment Insurance
  • Public Housing
  • Food Stamps
  • Universal Health Care

So when we are talking about socialism we are talking about programs similar to these - a program administered by the government for the "benefit" of those in need.

Basic Principles of Life

It is important to cover some basic principles of life because they tie into socialism. Most people do not talk about such parts of life in discussions of socialism and consequently it never ever makes sense.


An important point that is never talked about ever is the concept of growth. Why are we here on earth? Where are we going? Are we to just float by each day and stay the same? Is it okay to not work hard? Would it be better to have things given to us or should we work for them?

These are FUNDAMENTAL questions at the core of almost every political and personal issue, but for some reason we have decided to ignore these questions. As soon as these kind of questions are not tied in to your life you are going to be limiting your overall decision making.

Since we have been so far removed from spiritual things and ethical philosophies it is hard to educate most people on a topic such as growth but nevertheless it needs to be done.

Take the life cycle for instance. We start as a child and GROW into an adult. We are not born as adults or as mature. We are born in an INFERIOR state of that of a child. Similarly, a tree starts as a seed before becoming a full tree. Things evolve, they grow, they don't stay the same. Growth is part of nature and the universe and consequently is most likely a positive aspect of life. We do not expect to grow old only to die at the same level of understanding and wisdom we had as a 5 year old. We do not wish to go through life without learning new things and discovering new places - GROWTH. Therefore, it may be wise to consider the concept of personal development and individual growth throughout discussions of socialism.

Not everyone is created equal

We all start at different levels. Don't believe me? Why are there people born in Africa that have to strive all day for food while others born in Europe sit fat and wealthy? People start with a different set of cards. I know most people don't like to think about this or talk about it, but it is a fact and something that ties into socialism. While we are all equal as human beings we are not equal as far as our circumstances and families. Some of us have worse luck than others. Some people have great families, others do not. This is something we need to understand and be able to be mature about either way. Just because somebody got a bad family and a hard start in life does not mean it is something to get all hurt about. There are many positives that can come from this. After all, our purpose here is not to be born into a good family but to GROW from our current position. We are to mature from our starting point. Despite the starting point, we can all leave this earth a little better than we started.

Principles to Build a Foundation

Let's now set forth some principles that are worthy of building a foundation on - things that we can almost all agree on.

  • Honesty
  • Wisdom
  • Maturity
  • Virtue
  • Integrity
  • Intelligence
  • Creativity
  • Patience
  • Discipline
  • Love
  • Hard Work

Almost everyone will agree these are all admirable traits that should be exercised by everyone. So why would we want to possibly go up against these basic principles? How could it ever make sense to travel away from such principles that are basic to sound living? And yet we seem to be okay with going away from this foundation all the time. As we explore socialism it is imperative to come back to these principles and see if we are still maintaining them and in alignment with them. We should never stray from such basic truths.

Measuring Socialism Actions Against Principles

So how does Socialism compare to these basic principles we have outlined? Does it promote such principles, or does it demote them?

Hard VS Easy

The easy way is almost never the right way. For it is the hardships each one of us face that strengthen us. Just like if we don't stay active and physically fit we become brittle and weak. If we don't exercise our mind we become stubborn and slow. Although many good things in life are hard, they are necessary. These hardships are necessary to help us grow. And again, growth is a very important part of our everyday existence. Not going to school as a child is easy. It's easy to skip class and not become educated. But is that really worth it in the long run? Is it worth it to take the easy road and not become educated? Do such choices not ultimately end up hurting us as we progress through life? Easy choices rarely provide the testing and circumstances for growth, new experiences and fulfillment in life. We feel and are best when we overcome challenges, not when we run from them. Therefore, such an approach should be maintained when talking with political matters.

Why then would we opt for the easy road when we get fired from a job? Why then would we expect the easy handout of collecting unemployment when this does nothing to fix the problem but only to sustain it? We interrupt our challenge of finding a new job when we fall victim to the trap of collecting unemployment. We fall victim to the trap of collecting food stamps thinking that this will make things right. While in the short term these types of "fixes" may take care of the matter at hand, in the long run they will ultimately dig their own grave. Neglecting responsibility on your own part is always something that will bring you down rather than bring you up. It is important to recognize areas of growth and to overcome such challenges. Socialist programs only serve to allow one to escape such opportunities for development - and at a heavy price as we will soon discover.

Parent & Child

Children need parents to take care of them - the same way a socialist needs a government to take care of them. Think about what I just said. A socialist is openly admitting to being a child. They are actively embracing it. They would much rather remain a child their whole life than grow up and become a parent. Parents have responsibility, children do not.

For somebody to need somebody else to take care of them shows an inability of the individual to do so him/herself. This is why children live with their parents. They can't do things on their own. They are too IMMATURE to live on their own. They haven't yet developed their PRINCIPLES to act as a contributing individual to society yet. They haven't learned their lessons and overcome their appetites yet. So when we are living in a world of socialists, who by their actions participate in the exact same mistakes as children what does this really say about socialism? What does it say about where we are headed? It is much more appropriate to be adults and practice discipline than to be children and live with lower rules. Again, go back to our main principles and ask yourself whether a child or a mature adult will uphold such principles in a decent manner.

Hitting on Emotions

Let's talk about how socialism is promoted. Everyone knows that humans are emotional beings. We all cry, love, feel bad, feel good, get hurt, have feelings and on and on. We are emotional on many grounds.

The main reason why socialism is so appealing is that it focuses on your emotional and personal attributes. Everyone wants to think that it is so admirable not to let other people starve, that it is so helpful to educate everyone, that we are so nice not to let anyone have hardships. But in doing so, we throw away some of the basic principles of life. Principles like hard work, like failure, like integrity, like all the struggles that help us grow.

A common way to push a socialist agenda is to tap into these emotions. But these emotions aren't tapped into without anything CONNECTED. This is where sales comes in. Everyone knows that a good salesman will sweet talk you into certain things of your interest in order to get you to swallow the whole. They will compliment you, be your friend, work extra for you, but in the end they got your sale.

This is the same with socialism. Take something like welfare. There are lots of dynamics with welfare, but when marketed to the general public only the positives are sold. Themes like, "you wouldn't want to let your neighbor starve would you?", or "How does the greatest nation on earth not take care of its weak?". It's all sales, period. And the people are lined up waiting to be sold.

But what people fail to realize is that there's a catch. Just because the statement sold is a good thing, doesn't mean there are no negatives attached.

For example, if I were offer lots of candy and soda to a little kid he would gladly accept it thinking I am the nicest, coolest guy in the world. After all, his parents don't allow such great food in the home. He has to eat broccoli and apples. Yuk! So initially my offer of candy would seem very appealing to the child. But after a little bit of time he may develop a stomach ache and feel really awful from the lack of nourishment. A steady diet of candy would eventually lead to a weaker body and a more slothful child. He wouldn't be as strong if he had just stuck to his parents regime of more wholesome foods. This is the exact same thing that goes on with socialist programs - and they are sold to most people the same way candy is sold to the child. They appeal to the emotions: they feel good, they taste good, they look good - but are they really good for you?

Short-Term VS Long-Term

Socialism is in most ways the opposite of growth. It goes against universal law by teaching that things like patience and hard work are not needed. It teaches that taking from another for your own selfish ends is okay. It promotes and rewards people for turning their back on growth. And growth is the reason we are here.

Don't think growth is important? Everything that you enjoy in life is growth. Going out and meeting new people is growth. Watching the TV and learning new things is growth. Every time you gain more information you are growing. We all like growing, we just don't know it. There are certain types of growth we like and others we don't like because we are not quite able to see the positive effects they will have on our life.

This is where short-term and long-term thinking come into effect. When you were a child sometimes you may not have had the wisdom that your parents or teachers possessed. You would make rash decisions that would ultimately end up to hurt you in the end. Ever gone against your parents' word after they strictly told you not to do it? The parent will warn the child not to touch the hot stove, but for the sole reason of growth and experience the child will do it anyway. And so the child learns the hard way as they were not able to take the parents advice.

The same is true with socialism. The parents of society and life will tell the children that socialism will ultimately come back to burn them. The universe will not let you get away with breaking natural law. If the universe teaches through integrity and self-responsibility trying to evade these concepts will only render you back down to an animal. You will now be no different than a monkey or dog that doesn't have the foresight of a wise human being.

We all want independence, we all want freedom, but we don't want to take the steps to get there. We don't like the kind of growth that doesn't have short term effects. We don't like the growth that may not pay off for a couple of years. We don't like the kind of growth that comes off disguised in overalls and a paint brush. We are always trying to evade this type of growth, the same way the child tries to avoid the discipline of their parent.

Teaching How To Fish

We've all heard the phrase, "Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day; teach a man to fish, he'll eat for life".

When most people read and think about this saying they will most certainly think that it is always better to teach somebody how to fish. Why would you want to give them a fish when they will have to keep coming back to you for more fish every day? It would be much smarter to just teach the person how to fish so that they are now SELF-RELIANT. The person who gets the fish given to them for 1 day is reliant on somebody else - just like how a child is reliant on their parents. The person who learns how to fish is not reliant on somebody else - they are like a parent who can take care of them self. Even better, once the person has learned how to fish they can now teach others how to fish as well. It spreads.

I would like to equate giving a man a fish with that of socialism. Socialism, for the most part, is built around the concept of giving things that create reliance on the giver. Socialism does not focus on teaching how to overcome a situation or grow individually, but on how to get by for the day. And tomorrow, when the same problem presents itself again, once again something will be given so the person is taken care of again. This whole time they are never really learning how to fish. They are simply stunting their growth while also taking from somebody else. This is a very bad position to be in. 2 people are getting hurt here rather than both being helped.

You don't help somebody by enabling them to continue their error. It is important that people realize that most socialist programs have such an agenda hidden within. This, again, now has to do with the people promoting such programs being themselves children. If one was really an intelligent, mature individual they would know the best way to educate and help their citizens grow is NOT to allow them to take. They would know that the socialist answer does not promote growth. It doesn't teach people how to become self-sufficient and able to help others. It doesn't spread. Socialism works the opposite way. It takes. It slowly collapses on itself. People become dependent on others and lose whatever independence they have.

Socialism is a Failing Model

Being a businessman I am always caring about whether things make a profit or make a loss. And being a human being, I am always concerned with whether things are profitable or hurting towards others. In both of these cases socialism fails.

While a quick look at socialism may seem as though it is a working model that spreads everything out so we are all much more equal and in harmony, deeper investigation shows this is simply not the reality of it.

Have you ever worked really hard for something? Maybe when you were younger you worked really hard to become the best player in a particular sport. Maybe you studied really hard and got a good grade on a test. Maybe you got really good at smoking weed. Whatever the case, we have all worked hard at something and been driven to work hard at getting good at it for whatever reason.

Now how does it help you to take away that reward and recognition for striving hard? How does it motivate you to grow and develop yourself when working harder is no different than working easier? When hard work and easy work produces the same result what motivation is there to do work hard?

If you studied your ass off to get good grades in school, but some other student who didn't study and was far inferior to you academically got into the same college as you how would that make you feel? How would you feel if he was allowed the same job as you? Would you feel that he earned it and deserved it? It this the right thing to do?

So what does this have to do with socialism? While this may not be something socialism directly advocates, it is absolutely an inescapable truth. There is no way of escaping the proven fact that as soon as somebody learns they no longer needs to work as hard to get what they want, they won't. If this includes avoiding getting a new job or living off food stamps so be it. Socialism promotes people to take the lower road rather than the higher road.

And it's not just poor people. Look at the way banks are always being bailed out by socialism. Look at how when a bank fails it is subsidized by the taxpayer rather than replaced by a new company that ISN'T bankrupt. How does that make any sense? Why do you give a company money when it is about to go bankrupt? Is this insanity? Shouldn't a new company come in and take over its assets at a huge discount? And we all know the world will not collapse if these large companies are allowed to fail. The only thing that will collapse are the bankers making money off the millions of Americans who fall for the scam time and time again. This stuff is obvious to anybody with an IQ higher than room temperature.

Socialism Is Morally Wrong

What? Are you stupid Quinton? How is helping people WRONG? Helping people isn't wrong... helping them the socialist way is. This comes back to good parenting vs bad parenting. A country should be a good parent to its citizens. It should equip them with the discipline and moral integrity to actually grow and become better. They should become self-reliant and helpful to others.

Giving handouts everyday IS NOT the way to teach somebody how to grow. They grow through education and experience. They grow through struggles and hardships. Neither of these are allowed through socialism. Socialism is like handing somebody a fish every day rather than teaching them how to fish. Is this how you would want to raise you children? Is this morally the right thing to do? Is it morally correct to allow your children to continue a lifestyle of dependency or is it morally correct to show them how to wean themselves from such a dependency?

How then could enabling people with welfare checks, food stamps and all the other social programs be the morally correct choice? Such mistakes are only making our society worse. The moral thing to do is to help people. Socialism clearly does not help people in the long run.

Socialists DO NOT Know History

Go quiz a socialist on history. Ask them about Nazi Germany or Communist Soviet Union. They will know nothing about either of these important events that explain almost all of our current events. They will be unable to see the parallels between both of these events with that of our current socialism. Those who fail to learn history are destined to repeat it. But socialists have absolutely no interest whatsoever to learn history. They have no interest in learning because learning is hard. Socialism is not about hard work or growth, it is about somebody else doing the hard work for you while you fulfill your desires and escape your responsibilities.

Most Socialists Do Not Recognize the Errors

The same way a child does not understand their errors, a socialist is usually unaware of the hidden negatives associated with such a philosophy. When a child steals from a store because they can, they haven't fully developed themselves to understand that they are hurting the store by doing so. They haven't quite understood how there are negative effects outside of their selfish act. Socialists have not outgrown this same mindset.

I think it is fair to say that most good things in life take time. Bill Gates didn't become rich overnight. Thomas Edison didn't invent the light bulb his first try. Beethoven didn't write his masterpieces instantly. Good things almost always take time and effort. So how do such principles compare to socialism?

For instance, we can all agree that it is admirable and appropriate to help the lesser people in our society. Everyone should be given the best chance they can get and those in need should be helped. Where socialism breaks down is on how it plans to accomplish such a goal. Socialism takes the instant gratification approach while a more mature approach takes an approach of patience and effort.

When somebody turns down a socialist regime they ARE NOT saying that they think it is okay for people of misfortune to suffer and for nothing to be done about it. They are saying that the socialist approach is NOT the right way to go about helping them, the same as feeding a child candy is not the way to curb his hunger. Or the same way giving a man who doesn't know how to fish a fish to take care of him for the day. The goal of helping those in need should be focused on equipping them with the ability to take care of themselves. Education and long-term solutions should be the focus.

And yes, sometimes there is going to be some PAIN. Pain is not a bad thing. It is part of growth. Again, the correct path is not always the easiest path - in most cases it is the hardest path. But in the end it will provide the most fruit and allow for the highest level of freedom and prosperity. After all, such a path is in alignment with our universal principles that mirror nature.

If a tree is without water it may have to be patient and wait weeks for a new storm to brew. It may not get the water it so desperately needs immediately. But when the water finally comes it will be thankful and use it appropriately. Things are not always easy. This is nature. This is life.

People DO Sell Out

It is important to realize that people do sell out. What do I mean by this? People have a certain threshold of how far they are willing to go along the path of virtue before finally selling out to the lower road.

Take something like prostitution for example. Most women know that this is wrong and will avoid such an act to the best of their ability. However, when the right circumstances present themselves almost all will be willing to finally sell out. Will most women do this for $500? Probably not. $1,000? Again, probably not. But what happens when the stakes are risen to $1,000,000? Or maybe their emotional ego will be appealed to by placing them in the spotlight as a Hollywood star. Such circumstances really push the threshold of what otherwise moral and decent people are willing to do.

These types of things should be considered in relation to socialism. While socialism obviously has nothing to do with prostitution in the normal sense, it does in the threshold of selling out sense. Socialism, like prostitution, has a certain level of how far people are willing to go before they finally just cave in and give up the hard path of growth and universal principles. Couple this with outside circumstances that force them into such situations that really pull at their deepest desires and, well, they are sold.

Look at the recent health care legislation in America. People don't need this. They can easily work harder and smarter and become better because of it. But that dangling carrot looks so tasty and will make things a bit easier for our immediate needs. In the end it will be another contributing factor towards bankruptcy in America, but the threshold has been reached. The circumstances and conditions were right to finally allow people to cave in and think they are doing the right thing. Just like the prostitute was doing the right thing for $1,000. You'd be a fool to pass up such a deal, right?

Socialism is Religious Fanaticism

Socialism is not a political view that takes an honest approach at understanding and solving problems. Socialism is not about real solutions that will last far into the future. Socialism is religious fanaticism. Socialists are very similar to many religious groups that get to a certain point and then refuse to research any further. They have their mind made up and that's it.

And just like these religious groups they refuse to do any research whatsoever. True die-hard socialists are by far the most uneducated group you will ever find. And of course they are, the same goes for their religious fanatical counterparts. They have no interest in solving problems or truth, their interest is regurgitating what their masters have told them. For all intents and purposes, Socialists are no different than fundamental religious factions - lacking in critical thinking, an honest yearning for real answers and the humility to let go of their views when a more appropriate one is discovered.

Administered By The Government

Another note worth mentioning is that socialism is administered by the government. That's right, the very people responsible for the long post office lines, lengthy road construction, long DMV waiting times and on and on. Any businessman, and most non-businessmen, KNOW that the government is by far the most cumbersome and inefficient group of people ever known to man.

Why is the government inefficient? Because it's socialist of course. Government employees have no incentive to work hard because their boss has no incentive to work hard because if they don't do their job correctly it doesn't matter. They still get paid compliments of the taxpayer. The government faces no competition whatsoever and as a result can do a lesser job than a private company would ever be allowed to. But this isn't even my point.

My point is that the government can't turn a profit on anything. They can't manage anything correctly. So why do people think it is okay for such a terrible company to administer our social programs? If we really wanted social programs to be ran correctly we would actually move them AWAY from government control and in to private control. Does anybody ever stop to think why the government is controlling such programs? Even IF socialism was logically and morally viable, which is clearly IS NOT, the government should be the absolute last business to run such programs.

Democrats and Republicans are both Socialists

Don't make the mistake of thinking that Democrats are the only Socialists. Republicans are also Socialists, just a tad bit less. But they are equally as guilty as following these same socialist principles. It doesn't matter what party we have in office, socialism grows, ergo, both parties are socialists.

Capitalism hasn't failed

It is common these days to hear that capitalism has failed. When exactly did it fail? If it failed within the last year it wasn't capitalism. If it failed within the last 20 years it wasn't capitalism. If it failed within the last 50 years it still wasn't capitalism that failed. We haven't had capitalism in this country for well over 100 years. We've had socialism for a long time and it is ever increasing. So if things are getting worse it is not as a result of capitalism, it is the result of socialism. Capitalism hasn't existed for over 100 years in America.

Side by side comparison

If you would like a side by side comparison of Capitalism and Socialism please click the link below:

Communism VS Socialism VS Fascism VS Capitalism Table / Chart

Some Admirable People Throughout History

Let's now explore some of the most admirable people throughout history. We all have heroes that we look up to. There are always people who for certain reasons seem to earn the respect of others. How and why is this? What makes these people worthy of respect and admiration?

While most people's heroes these days are along the lines of Lady Gaga, 50 Cent, Paris Hilton and so on, there are still those more admirable heroes that even the most staunch socialist will have a hard time denying.

People like Michael Jordan, Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison are pretty hard to not respect. So what do these people have to say about things like socialism?

I've failed over and over and over again in my life and that is why I succeed.
Michael Jordan

Look at that. He didn't get it right his first time. He's experienced failure and being at the bottom. He didn't give up like most people love doing.

I've always believed that if you put in the work, the results will come.
Michael Jordan

Work? Who wants to work these days? Who does this Michael Jordan think he is? Clearly not a hero... oh wait.

You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.
Abraham Lincoln

Oh look, Abraham Lincoln wasn't particularly fond of running from your hardships. He was a fan of embracing them. Not very socialist sounding to me.

Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.
Albert Einstein

Look at that, Einstein was a fan of being educated on topics before bashing them. Are socialists educated on history? Do they know about Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia? Hmmmmm...

Strength does not come from winning. Your struggles develop your strengths. When you go through hardships and decide not to surrender, that is strength.
Arnold Schwarzenegger

Sounds like an approach to life an adult would take. I wonder if socialists are into struggling when they get fired from their job or if they're into struggling when they're trying to support their family. I wonder if they turn to God or the State...

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Here we have Jesus talking about going down the HARD road - going against the crowd. Not very socialist sounding.

Everything comes to him who hustles while he waits.
Thomas Edison

It seems like this Edison character was quite the fan of staying BUSY. What do socialists do in their free time?

The republic will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

Who does this Thomas Jefferson think he is? What does he know about government?

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
Thomas Jefferson

So you're telling me freedom actually requires work? Now it all is becoming so clear: Socialism = no work. Freedom = hard work.

Now did I simply find the quotes I wanted to so that I could use them in favor of my argument? Maybe, I'll let you be the judge. But after an honest study I think it will be hard to come out and say that ANY of these people were socialists by their actions. We're talking about heroes here. Socialists aren't heroes. They're the opposite of heroes. Do you know any children that are heroes?

Why It's Promoted

So why is socialism so prevalent? We've already hit on this but it's important to reiterate. The main reason socialism is so popular is because people always choose the easy path. Socialism is easy. That's all there is to it. It is the quick fix and the short-term thing to do. It is acting out of ignorance than out of wisdom. And as we've already discovered, the easy, quick path very rarely has much benefit at all.

A Final Look At Socialist Programs

  • Social Security - Enables people to have somebody else take care of them because they are not self-sufficient. This does not offer a path for them to get off of social security once they are self-sufficient. People didn't even want it when it was originally pushed but somehow it was passed anyway (hmmmm... sounds like the healthcare bill)
  • Medicare/Medicaid - Tells people it's okay for them to not worry about taking care of their health or staying physically fit. After all, you will be taken care of when you are older. Why live a healthy life when you can immorally push your shortcomings on someone else?
  • Minimum Wage - Doesn't allow for businesses to pay people what they are worth. If the employee is only worth $1/hour he should be paid $1/hour. Allows lower quality employees to make more money. Doesn't let the market set the price.
  • Unemployment Insurance - Forces businessmen to look after employees who are no longer working for the business. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Business shouldn't have to pay for people who no longer work for them. Employees shouldn't EXPECT to be paid if they ARE NOT working.
  • Public Housing - Not everyone can afford to live in a mansion. Be happy with what you have. Work harder and smarter if you want something better. Don't expect it for free.
  • Food Stamps - This one of obvious. It promotes people to stay under a certain level of maturity in order to get their freebie. It's similar to throwing a dog a doggie biscuit. He is dependent on the master.
  • Universal Health Care - Promotes people to live unhealthy lives and forces business and individuals to pay for others who don't look after themselves.

There is obviously A LOT more to be said about all of these. I am just giving some basics.


So after all this do you really think socialism is the way? Does socialism really align itself with basic principles of living and growth? Or is socialism simply a mob of children chasing after candy and their every appetite? Do we favor adolescence or do we favor maturity? Do we favor instant gratification or do we favor patience? Are we willing to put forth the work required to maintain such freedoms? Perhaps now would be a good time to go back to the principles listed in the beginning of this article and see just how closely we are aligning ourselves to these when we embrace socialism. Are we children or are we adults? It's about time we started acting like adults.

If you made it through this whole article you are most likely not a socialist. After all, it's hard to read an article, especially one this long. Socialists, like children, want the easy road, they always have and they always will. Don't be fooled by the label or package socialism is wrapped up in- when people are striving to act like children and are fearful of becoming adults they have swallowed the pill of socialism.

 Filed under: Politics / Government, Logic, Socialism, Morality

About The Author

Quinton Figueroa

Quinton Figueroa

Facebook @slayerment YouTube

El Paso, Texas

I am an entrepreneur at heart. Throughout my whole life I have enjoyed building real businesses by solving real problems. Business is life itself. My goal with businesses is to help move the human ...



Concerned: Reply to Socialism

Very good post and well worth the time it took you to write it. Unfortunately, you are probably correct that anyone who favors socialism would not make it through this post. Those are the weak minded and ignorant parasites of our society, and most of which aren't worth the time to try and teach. Those who support socialism are anti-American since they hate everything this great country stands for. However, you are also correct in the fact that our country has already been living under a great number of socialist policies for more than 50 years, and coincidentally they are all failing. Every socialist program that exists has been bankrupting our country since inception of the policies.

What people must understand is that socialism leads to communism, thus as Lenin said; "communism is socialism in a hurry." Basically, socialism is a form of Marxism and will always lead to communism.

I do want to make one point that you missed. I agree that most people who support socialism do not understand history or socialism. However, those in power who push for socialism understand it very clearly. For instance, President Obama definitely understands socialism, thus he knows exactly what he is doing. The man can't stand America and desires to transform it to a socialist/communist style of government run by radicals. My opinion is that he plans to become a dictator, though this may be a bit much for some reading this to digest. Anyone who understands this president and the Democratic party should be able to realize how radical their intentions are. It is actually scary when you truly understand what is going on. Our country has been taken over by radical left wing Marxists who will stop at nothing to get what they want.

Good post, keep it up.

Anonymous: There are pitfalls to

There are pitfalls to capitalism, like there are pitfalls to socialism. The answer for the best economic practices lies in moderation between the two. Police and Fire Fighters are also facets of socialism.

To view an issue so complex as a right or wrong is as much as a problem as anyone being a complete socialist like it is for people who are pure capitalists.

Capitalism is all about exploitation, of resources, people, everything and anything to make money. While some tenets are great others are not, but I say the same about socialism.

The problem with your post is that you already have your own narrative in your mind and nothing short of a paradigm shift will help you change that.

Have a good day.

AntiSpin: Hypocritical article.

Don't stop there. I can think of some other "socialist" programmes, going by your defintion;

Is having a fire department socialism?

Surely people should look after themselves if they have a fire.

Is having a police department socialism?

Surely people should look after their own security.

Is air-traffic control socialism?

Surely if people want to fly in planes they should pay for their own air traffic controllers.

Are libraries socialism?

If people want to choose from 1000 books they should buy them.

Are public parks socialism?

If people want to use a park they should buy one or pay for the privelage. The poor don't deserve parks.

Is NASA socialism?

If people want to explore the frontiers of space then it should be for profit and not human advancement.

The problem with people like you is you completely denounce socialism but then pick and choose bits that you like. Can't have it both ways.

To be honest, all I've gotten from your articles is that you preach one thing but practice another. You believe in helping people, but the fact you don't believe in a mimimum wage means you support, endorse and are perfectly happy with capitalist slavery and exploitation. The fact you don't believe in Medicare means you believe in older people and children who are unfortunate enough to be born into poor families should die off. You believe that those who fall on hard times should be ignored.

You can't have it both ways. I get the impression you fully support capitalism and are against helping people. If that's your position, state it, rather than posting conflicting viewpoints. I have no problem with someone who is honest and open about supporting a system which doesn't care for people, but don't try and cover it up or hide behind Christianity to mask your lack of selflessness.

Btw, I read the entire article (which was full of opinion stated as fact, and inaccuracies), and still a democratic socialist Christian. ; )

Quinton Figueroa: Thanks for the response. I
@AntiSpin (view comment)

Thanks for the response. I will gladly add to what you have said.

Having all these extra things you mentioned certainly is socialism. If we had it my way I would get rid of them all. I am totally fine with having people work as small communities taking care of each other rather than a Federally imposed BS social program that is entirely manipulated through a central bank owned by outsiders. Obviously libraries and parks and these types of things aren't as big of a problem BECAUSE they are managed at the state level and not the Federal level. The Federal level is the main problem, but I would go as far as cutting the state crap as well.

Socialism isn't necessarily bad in some ways, but the way it's done in America is an absolute joke. Were you aware that over 1/3 of your Federal income taxes go straight towards paying the interest on our national debt? Were you aware that this national debt could be completely eliminated simply by issuing our own money through the Treasury rather than a privately owned central bank? Most people aren't. And this is just one of the many reasons socialism is a complete scam. Socialism, especially in America, is a complete farce and manipulation. You may think your tax dollars go to help humanity and mankind, but in reality they are going to your masters to come up with even more ways to enslave you. Keep paying that interest. They love you.

America became the wealthiest nation before we had all this social crap and government regulation. Socialism always ends up rewarding failure and promoting laziness. It's a failing model. Most people can't understand this because most people can't look 2 days ahead. They live in the here and the now. They don't have a clue about symbols, patterns or abstract concepts. They are simply robots repeating the same message their friends repeat.

Let's talk about minimum wage. You call me a hypocrite for not supporting it. Of course I don't support it. I've studied Austrian Economics (real economics) and understand how a free market works. By telling an employer what they have to pay an employee is completely ludicrous. What if their candidates for the job are only worth $1 an hour? It should be their choice to choose what to pay. Should we also have a maximum wage cap for when people are becoming too wealthy? Don't want to work for $1 an hour? Fine! Nobody is forcing you to work for $1 an hour. Think $1 an hour is a complete ripoff? Great! Start your own company that offers $2 an hour or $3 an hour or even $10 an hour for your employees. It is up to the worker to decide what price works for them and if they will work for $1 an hour let them. If they won't then the company will have to pay more. But having the government choose the price of hiring is yet another mistake of socialism. It was all created on purpose. This stuff isn't accidental. Somebody knows why we have it and it benefits them. You may not understand it because you are not supposed to understand it.

I don't fully support capitalism because I am against helping people. I fully support capitalism because I AM FOR helping people. History shows that this is clearly the best system we have ever developed for helping people. The most freedom is always championed by allowing the individual to decide what's best for themselves. As soon as you start having somebody else decide what's best for you you are bringing in a fascist flavor. But fascism is great for morons who don't know what's best for themselves, which is why socialism, communism and fascism are all so prevalent in today's societies. People used to want to grow and educate themselves. They used to want to develop families with virtue and integrity. Now all they want is cold beer and basketball. So when all you know is basketball you have to have somebody holding your hand making your decisions for you. Some people like staying in 3rd grade their whole life. I prefer to move on and help others move on, which is why I support free market capitalism and why I know socialism is not the better model for achieving this.

It's a fascinating subject when one studies it and digs a bit deeper than CNN, Fox News and even Welfare Christianity.

AntiSpin: Still an argument full of flaws and fallacy.

It is fascinating and in fairness digging deeper than Fox, CNN and all the other so-called "News" networks, is hardly digging very deep.

If you'd studied history, to any degree, why don't you look back at glorious world you propose, before a minimum wage. You wish to go back to Victorian times (pure capitalism)? Where workeers were paid next to nothing, where children were exploited, where hours were long and there were no safety standards enforced. You believe in employers having all the rights and employees having none. I'm afraid I cannot agree with this. It's illogical, but it's immoral and it causes social unrest. And how do you measure how much a job is worth anyway? Is it just what the employer feels like paying? If that is the case, then the employers will simply slash wages across the board, and anyone offering high wages will be driven out of business, as they won't be able to compete. This, as you are well aware, is basic economics. Your system would just have the majority of people earning next to nothing. There is already a push from the right-wing such as yourself to return to the days where employees had next to nothing. This will only lead to poverty, unhappiness, social unrest, and ultimately some kind of worker revolution. Workers have rights such as minimum wage to avoid this very situation.

But let's take your idea again. You propose that if I don't want to work for $1 an hour (because I don't want to starve). I start my own company? How? Where does the capital come from? A bank? An investor? Either way, you will have to go to an entity that will sponge off your work, and take a disproportionate amount of profit from your business. A parasite, in other words. Something it would seem you would be fundamentally against. This being case, how would I go about establishing my business? Do I do it the good ol' fashioned capitalist way and steal from other to people to enrich myself. After all, every man for himself.

Your argument about things being controlled - well, some things have to be controlled to maintain any kind of social order. Are you saying we shouldn't have laws that prohibit you from trespassing, from stealing, from driving on the wrong side of the road. These all restrict your freedom. Should we just remove these laws, make it a personal choice to follow them with no judicial repercussions if you don't.

You envisage a world that frankly can't exist. In capitalism, making money is the single-most important driving force. Regardless of who you step on. You claim history shows it to be the most successful - for whom? Perhaps for countries like America and Britain who stole, through imperalist measures, the Gold, diamonds, wealth etc. from Africa, who imported slaves from Africa, stole the land from the Indians etc. Those people certainly weren't self-determining like you claim, yet this capitalist-driven stealing, is a large part of the reason that America and Britain are so rich today. And it would seem you endorse this.

Now you might claim it was wrong of them to do this, but then under your system there would be no federal law preventing them as this would be socialism! I have no problem with you supporting pure capitalism, but if you do, you're going to recognise the huge moral and societal flaws with it, and you seem unable to this.

Just because it was beneficial to America, and parts of Europe (who also, co-incidentally stole from other countries), does not mean, it is the absolute best system, as you clearly think it is.

You answer this basic question, the 300,000 unfortunate people who work for Walmart, and get paid just over $8 an hour and can barely afford to keep themselves afloat. Under your model, their wages, would be reduced, to say $1 an hour, they would lose all their social benefits. How on Earth would they live any kind of life? Or would they have to sort to criminality? What laws would be in place to punish this? Do you believe in any laws? Surely that's picking and choosing socialist elements again.

And btw, your proposal of a community of people taking care of each other. It's not such a bad idea, but it is socialistic, and thus going by your arguments should be rejected.

What flaws in capitalism do you see?

Quinton Figueroa: Britain is not my model for
@AntiSpin (view comment)

Britain is not my model for Capitalism or freedom. Why would I look to the Victorian era for enlightenment? America was fighting AGAINST Britain. If you want to look at the best shot we've had at Capitalism look towards ~1800 - 1900's America. Even though there were still tons of problems, that is where we had things right for the most part. We went from third world to first world during these trying years. Ever since we've been on a slow decline both morally and financially. Allow me to elaborate on some of your points:

"You believe in employers having all the rights and employees having none."

Think about what you just said. The employees hold all the cards, not the employer. If the employees quit the employer is screwed. I believe in employers and employees having the right to do it how they want. If employers don't want to pay a certain amount fine. If employees don't like it they DON'T have to work there. No party owes the other party anything. If they can agree on working together great. If not, fine.

"And how do you measure how much a job is worth anyway?"

This is basic economics. The market determines that. If you need qualified people you will pay big bucks for them. If you need low quality people they will come cheap. Do you really think the government does a better job at finding the wage for a job by imposing a minimum wage than simply letting the free market determine this figure? If people want to charge low don't work for them.

"I start my own company? How? Where does the capital come from? A bank? An investor? Either way, you will have to go to an entity that will sponge off your work, and take a disproportionate amount of profit from your business."

I really like this point because I agree with you in that I HATE investors because they usually do take over your company and gain more control. But you DON'T NEED investors by any means. This is a complete misconception and what they want you to think. I have started MANY businesses without a dime of investment money and turned many of them profitable. I have done better than many employees simply by choosing to start my own business from scratch rather than becoming an employee and demanding a certain wage. You don't need money to start a business by any means. You just need hard work and persistence - a spiritual goal and close connection to God always helps as well. Does not the Bible say that the birds in the air are taken care of, and are we not more valuable than them? Perhaps people need to turn away from the state and employer a bit and move closer to God and discover just how he can provide for them.

"This being case, how would I go about establishing my business? Do I do it the good ol' fashioned capitalist way and steal from other to people to enrich myself. After all, every man for himself."

You're already coming in with a negative view. Pessimism isn't always the best way to start a business. Business isn't about burning people and this isn't capitalism. It's about OFFERING VALUE. Do something that is NEEDED. Look at all the problems we have in the world. FIX THEM! That is capitalism. That is business. That is what we really need. Don't burn people, that's for criminals and royal monarchies. What we need are true solutions to problems. For instance, I have noticed a complete lack of education in most of our public schools and universities. Rather than complain and tell the state to fix this, I have opted to simply start my own school. If the state won't educate people and teach them the important lessons in life then I will pick up the slack. Business is about value, not the misconceptions that are spread.

"Your argument about things being controlled - well, some things have to be controlled to maintain any kind of social order. Are you saying we shouldn't have laws that prohibit you from trespassing, from stealing, from driving on the wrong side of the road. These all restrict your freedom. Should we just remove these laws, make it a personal choice to follow them with no judicial repercussions if you don't."

Laws are not socialism. Laws are an instrumental part of a Republic. That's what a Constitutional Republic is (which America is supposed to be): Rule by law. So I am absolutely in favor of laws and I understand that this does require government. However, this is very minimal government and not really in the realm of socialism. The Constitution pretty much hit the nail on the head when it comes to the proper balance between government and people.

"You envisage a world that frankly can't exist. In capitalism, making money is the single-most important driving force. Regardless of who you step on."

This is a big topic and I completely understand where you're coming from. I will be the first to say that Capitalism is not a perfect system. I am simply saying that it is better than socialism. Capitalism brought America from third world to first world. It brought us the automobile, the computer, the mobile phone and all these other things we hardly choose to go a day without. Yes, it has a few ugly aspects but these are small when compared to socialism. For example, people always point to greed. I think Milton Freedman answers this point pretty well:

"You claim history shows it to be the most successful - for whom? Perhaps for countries like America and Britain who stole, through imperalist measures, the Gold, diamonds, wealth etc. from Africa, who imported slaves from Africa, stole the land from the Indians etc. Those people certainly weren't self-determining like you claim, yet this capitalist-driven stealing, is a large part of the reason that America and Britain are so rich today. And it would seem you endorse this."

This is a fair point and I can see good and bad in both sides on it. It's hard to say which one is right. The British taking over Africa through the Boer Wars and such I am most certainly NOT a fan of. This type of thing is definitely not the way to do it.

The American takeover of so-called Indian land I am not entirely sure on. I think there is a lot of disinformation and propaganda in these areas. For instance, even Thomas Jefferson himself writes in the Declaration of Independence:

He [King George III] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

So even here you can see once again that Britain is involved stirring things up. Are you starting to see a pattern with Britain always having their finger in things? America was almost the OPPOSITE of Britain. Once again, the Revolutionary war was not against Iran, Iraq, China, Russia, France or even Germany. It was against BRITAIN - And not the British people. British Monarchy.

So I think the whole slavery/Indians topics are quite involved and require lots of different angles. I have a hard time taking a stand on either, but probably would lean towards the thoughts of George Washington and America, not so much Britain.

"Now you might claim it was wrong of them to do this, but then under your system there would be no federal law preventing them as this would be socialism!"

Again, having government for law and coining of money and things of this nature is not what I'm after. It is the obvious BS stuff (almost always un-Constitutional) like social security, welfare, healthcare, etc, etc. Going back to how I defined it earlier we can see I am not talking about government being socialist in nature:

When I use the term socialism I am basically talking about the government administering helpful programs to citizens that are funded through taxpayer money. Socialism basically is government intervention in human affairs. It's similar to Robin Hood - taking from the rich and giving to the poor. That is basically what the term means.

Having the government do certain Constitutionally assigned tasks is not necessarily a bad thing. It is using the government to take from the haves and give to the have-nots that brings in the socialist flavor. Having government enforce laws like arresting criminals, enforcing our border laws, coining money and such isn't really socialism. Having government take from one person to give to another is.

"You answer this basic question, the 300,000 unfortunate people who work for Walmart, and get paid just over $8 an hour and can barely afford to keep themselves afloat. Under your model, their wages, would be reduced, to say $1 an hour, they would lose all their social benefits. How on Earth would they live any kind of life? Or would they have to sort to criminality? What laws would be in place to punish this? Do you believe in any laws? Surely that's picking and choosing socialist elements again."

Very simple. They would work at a local store that pays more. Can't find a store that pays more? Start your own. Can't start your own? Learn how to. Can't learn how to? Suffer the consequences. This topic is obviously very involved because now we start to bring in a lot of other elements at work here like illegal immigration and the deliberate dumbing down of our people. But please whatever we do, let's end the BS fear we have of everything collapsing and falling apart if we actually would abide by free-market principles.

Would most of them become criminals? I'm sure a lot would. And as you have seen earlier I most certainly am in favor of law. But it gets better... If we were really smart about our prisons WE WOULD PUT THESE PEOPLE TO WORK. If you're a criminal you shouldn't get a free ride in prison. You should produce for your country. Pissed off about this? Don't be a criminal! What a concept! A little work never killed anyone. We're supposed to work.

Milton Friedman again on minimum wage:

And Peter Schiff:

"And btw, your proposal of a community of people taking care of each other. It's not such a bad idea, but it is socialistic, and thus going by your arguments should be rejected."

There is a big difference here. THIS DOES NOT INVOLVE THE GOVERNMENT. This is EXACTLY how things should be done. It is the government management of it that I (and almost all free-market economists) are against. If people would one day wake up and become moral enough to find it in their heart to take care of others the world would be transformed overnight. But unfortunately I don't think this is going to happen anytime soon. People only really care about themselves. So as you can see I am by no means against humanitarian principles that socialism pretends to solve. I am simply smart enough to look at the facts and understand that none of these socialist programs do what they're supposed to do. I understand that there is a hidden hand behind the government and all their socialist BS. It's just ugly in so many ways. We have to be careful and smart about how we help others. Sometimes what we think is helping them is in point of fact hurting them.

"What flaws in capitalism do you see?"

Most of the flaws I see have pretty much been covered in this response. I will admit it's not 100% perfect. But nothing on this planet is. I will say that it is the best system I have yet seen at work with the quality of people we currently have on this planet. If everyone became moral and self-sufficient one day we could completely replace Capitalism and money with just helping each other. But this has yet to happen and probably never will happen on this planet. So in the meantime True Capitalism (not the fraud that we call Capitalism in present day America) will have to do until we find something better.

GreedOverPeople: How many rich people

How many rich people (millionaires/billionaires) actually deserve their money IN GOD'S EYES, considering that others are born into starvation with almost no way out, in spite of an abundant food supply in the world? If you had to bet your life on the answer to this question, what would your answer be?

Quinton Figueroa: It depends. What exactly is
@GreedOverPeople (view comment)

It depends. What exactly is the criteria that God is looking for? And which God are we talking about? If we're referring to Yahweh then he's pretty big on rich people. Abraham and Moses were not poor. Most of the Patriarchs throughout the Bible were wealthy. If you're talking Mohammad he was married into wealth. If you're talking Jesus he was wealthy as well.

I was unaware that being rich was a bad thing. What is it about being rich that is so bad? If you're mad about people being born into starvation why don't you do something about it rather than tell others what to do with their property. Maybe you're greedy because you're not giving everything you have towards helping others. Being rich doesn't make you bad. Being poor doesn't make you righteous. What makes you good or bad are your individual actions and your intent. There are rich criminals and there are poor criminals. Rather than pointing the finger at rich people who don't do what you want them to do don't you think you should instead put the ball in your court and do whatever it is you want done yourself? Why expect others to carry out your own wishes?

GreedOverPeople: I knew you wouldn't answer

I knew you wouldn't answer the question. "It depends" is not an answer, neither is carefully picking particular aspects of the Bible to suit your viewpoint, and neither is asking any questions about me. Assume I am Satan; it doesn't matter, it really shouldn't affect your answer, should it?

Don't worry, I am 99.99999% percent sure I know what your answer would be if you really had to bet your life on the answer to the question. Obviously, you will never admit it unless you LITERALLY had to bet your life on it. Typical religious right capitalist.

Quinton Figueroa: Before we begin to answer we
@GreedOverPeople (view comment)

Before we begin to answer we would need to define which God we are talking about. The Bible uses many different Hebrew words for God. Are we talking about Elohim, Yahweh, El or Adonai? Because each one of these Gods would have different criteria.

Trent: Einstein was a socialist

Einstein was a socialist and wrote several critiques of capitalism.

Dennis Richardson: Socialism is logically and morally weak

I had a running argument with my own mother regarding the democratic party and that jackass FDR. It got down to what was morally right. Only now could have told her that The Oligarchy in Venice a 1000 years ago moved to London 500 years ago to create the New World Order, world government. These are well established historical facts. Now it is in New York City and enslaving America. Put a stop to fractional reserve banking, it has facilitated the warfare state and the welfare state. Humanity is enslaved to illegitimate debt. Orchestrate a world wide debt cancelling Jubilee. The source of moral right and wrong promised a Jubilee in the future, it will arrive soon by HIS efforts.

William: The author of the article

The author of the article obviously had his mind set about socialism wrong before writing this and probably long before researching it. Please take this into account when reading this, for at some times it may seem biased or like absolute drivel, but at least you'll have an explanation for it now.

Lev Lafayette: Condemnation without Investigation

It's triply-ironic that you've used this quote.

Firstly, it's ironic that you've condemned socialism without investigation. No really. You've put up a bunch of straw-man arguments about socialism that are based on a de-ontological perspective which will ignore even utilitarian outcomes.

Secondly, it's ironic that you've used the quote without investigating the fact that was never used by Einstein, although it has been attributed to him and numerous other people.

Thirdly, it's ironic that you've attributed to Einstein who was a socialist.

Quinton Figueroa: Waiting for an argument as to
@Lev Lafayette (view comment)

Waiting for an argument as to what is wrong instead of semantic gatekeeping quibbles.

Lev Lafayette: The Argument is already done

You've already lost any and all arguments if you lack the cognitive ability to recognise the seriousness of these errors, the limits of your research ability, and the problems with methodological approach.

If you do not acknowledge this, you're simply just another Internet blow-hard presenting immature screeds on how their assertions don't need evidence.

I would suggest that you try again, starting with facts, and then build opinions around the evidence, rather than other way around.

Quinton Figueroa: More huffing and puffing on
@Lev Lafayette (view comment)

More huffing and puffing on aethestics. About what I'd expect from a socialist.

Add new comment